From the American Medical Association "Our American Medical Association: (1)
recognizes that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is
discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on gay and lesbian individuals and
couples and their families; (2) recognizes that exclusion from civil marriage
contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households; (3) will
work to reduce health care disparities among members of same-sex households
including minor children; and (4) will support measures providing same-sex
households with the same rights and privileges to health care, health insurance,
and survivor benefits, as afforded opposite-sex households."

The brief posits the question --what is marriage, [just like the casuistic book
by Robbie George] but this is a tactic to confuse the historical view of what
marriage has been with the essential question: what is the government's
purpose in acknowledging a marriage? The first purpose in civil family law is
to reflect the way that committed couples actually organize their personal,
financial and familial lives. Based in reality, the law makes presumptions
regarding affinity, family and fisc. [Historically, it reflected rich white
men's desires.] It is not an abstract concept, as the FRC would like us to
believe, but the way real couples exist in the real world. Straight and gay
couples order their lives the same way in making real world decisions, and thus
the government should and must recognize reality.

Marriage laws allow a person the right to make a legal commitment to the love of
their life. Utah gives incentives to both fertile and infertile straight people
to do this, but bans gay people from doing this same thing. Utah tells a gay
person "Dump the love of your life and marry some other opposite-sex person
that you don't love"... That's unequal treatment and is
unconstitutional under the 14th amendment... Further, it's downright cruel
and immoral to try to split-up a loving couple.

“You're known by the company you keep. Family
Research Council (FRC) is recognized as a hate group. With friends of the court
like that like that, who needs enemies. Good luck on trying to show there is no
animus behind Amendment 3.”

Where did you get that information?
Recognized by whom?

Question what you are told. Think for yourself.
PC accepts. Liberal thinks.

I would like to recommend reading the
entire brief filed by the attorneys for Utah (just google the Utah appeal court
brief 1294036). By reading the entire document, one can gain a much better
understanding of the powerful and compelling reasons Utah has for maintaining
the traditional definition of marriage.

-------------------

I read and analyzed the entire brief. There is nothing powerful or compelling
in it. It's just saying the same old thing in a lot of ponderous words.
It is in no way legally persuasive. Utah really wasted its money for that one.

Why is it that gay people continue to try to make the argument that marriage as
sanctioned by the state is about love??It is not!!!!The state's
only interest in marriage is the benefits of social structure and moral control.

Since what's best for society is no longer a consideration by
the state but getting more votes is they have changed their position on the
issue.The "LOVE" thing is only a requirement in the religion
sanctioning of marriage, which gay people totally oppose religious views but
want to use it to make their case that love supersedes nature, God and common
sense.

Marriage is and has been (as far as recordable history can determine) a union
between one man and one woman, providing the biological emotional and
phsychological basis for which a family is based. Man and woman can, in
principle create children within the bonds of matrimony, which is acceptable
before our Creator. It is the fundamental basis for our society.

I
think it perhaps ironic that one of the biggest arguments for same-sex marriage
is that it denies the rights of same-sex couples to experience the same joy and
happiness that hetero couples enjoy, as if to imply that happiness can't
exist without the bonds of legal marriage. Yet, in the same breath, I also hear
how fractured and fallible hetero marriages are (over 50% divorce rate) from the
same people. If it's so broken, why would you want a part of it? And are
you saying that love can't exist without marriage? Strange.

Family Research Council's amicus brief and the one filed by Utah is a night
and day contrast. FRC's is the brief that I think Utah's citizens
will wish their state filed.

While much more focused, analytic and
supported (and thus persuasive) in terms of the legal argument as to why
Shelby's opinion should be overruled, since FRC is not a party to the case,
there is no requirement that the 10th Cir. judges should give FRC's brief
any formal regard in their own analysis, nor will FRC's attorneys be part
of the oral argument.

Unlike Utah, FRC's brief doesn't
simply throw out a passing, and somewhat off-point, citation as to why Shelby
erred -- they dig right into the cases Shelby cited and logic he followed. Now,
even if the 10th Cir. pays it any mind, they may or may not find FRC's
argument convincing enough. But this is how it looks like when a party wants to
prevail on the appeal, just a shame for Utah that FRC is not a party.

We all forget that the whole issue, regardless of what side we take, will be
decided by SCOTUS. Constitutionality HAS NOT been decided by SCOTUS at this
point. Remember that in California Prop 8 SCOTUS did not rule that SSM is a
Constitutional right, but that those bringing the suit did not have standing.
Utahs Governor and AG have standing. Will SCOTUS rule in favor of Utah
supporting 33 other States? Or, will they rule against Utah and traditional
roles of States? Until then all of our opinions are only personal opinions,
only 5 SCOTUS opinions will matter.

"Everyone has their opinions on these issues, which is why the political
process should decide the outcome, not unelected judges."

I think
I just realized why some people are so against the language arts' common
core; the goal is to teach students that the way to present an argument and
support it is by providing factual evidence. Because opinions vary, we cannot
base our laws on them. We need to establish rules of law based on fact.

Also weighing in with their own amicus brief are Center for Urban Renewal and
Education, The Coalition of African-American Pastors, and The Frederick Douglass
Foundation.

From the FRC brief: "Given that same-sex marriage has
been allowed only since 2003...it cannot be said that same-sex marriage is
firmly rooted in 'the Nation's history, legal traditions, and
practices.'"

It CAN be said, however, that discrimination
against LGBTs is firmly rooted in the Nation's history, legal traditions,
and practices. The fertile ground in which it was planted is a compost of fear,
ignorance, and superstition.

But we know too much now, as evidenced
by Tolstoy's contributions above and countless others' throughout this
debate. When information enables one to shed fear or suspicion of another human
being, why would a person instead choose to cling to them even harder? This
reflex I do not understand. It seems to go against one's self-interest.
Don't you feel better - mentally, emotionally, physically - when you view
something positively rather than negatively?

Most stories of sexual abuse of a child reveals that the pedophile hid behind
the "sanctity" of "marriage" to have access to his victims.Never
heard of one case of sexual perversion by a married gay couple. The sexual
perversion statistics that these so called "family" organizarions cite
are all statistics taken from their own gene pool.

In reply to my comment you stated "Hmm, well maybe we can
reduce the risk of STDs by encouraging committed monogamous
relationships"

To try to compare the rate of STD (HIV/AIDS)in the
heterosexual population to the rate in the gay community is counter-factual and
disingenuous and you know it. Your assertion does not stand up to statistical
analysis or scientific evidence.

According the Centers for Disease
control and Prevention "In 2011, in the United States, MSM (men who have sex
with men) accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males
aged 13 years and older and 62% of 49,273 estimated diagnoses among all persons
receiving an HIV diagnosis that year".

This is very troubling
because HIV research and treatment costs the American tax payer billions of
dollars that could be used for other needs such as healthcare for the needy and
education.

Another major reason why laws in America should foster
committed traditional marriage and family relationships!

“No
one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some
stories, they really are not science.” Dr. Linda Waite

One the
misleading claims commonly made by homosexual activists and their allies is that
social science research proves that there are no significant differences
in the social and psychological outcomes for children raised by same-sex
“parents” when compared to those raised by heterosexual parents.
(The term “parent” will be used for convenience, but with the
recognition that no more than one member of a same-sex couple raising a child
can be the biological parent.)

However, independent evaluation of
the studies commonly used to support these assertions have concluded that all of
them fall far short of the minimum standards the social science disciplines
require to be met for research findings to have any validity.

@LovelyDeseret who said:"I wonder if gay marriage is not punishment
for not valuing and protecting marriage enough. If you don't cherish it,
you lose it. Like a thief on a Friday night before Christmas it snuck in and
stole marriage."

And yet, nothing is being taken away from you.
Your marriage, and mine of 30 years, will not be lost. The only thing
threatened by marriage equality is a sense of privilege some insist on having.
My enjoyment of a piece of pie is in no way diminished by someone at the next
table also enjoying a slice. To believe otherwise is the height of arrogance
and self importance.